4 ms·
If he got anything right, it's the "good enough" thing. There's a sense of reality in clojure, of compromises and of practicality. There's also a sense of aban
by radu_floricica 17y ago
If he got anything right, it's the "good enough" thing. There's a sense of reality in clojure, of compromises and of practicality.
There's also a sense of abandonment of some of lisp's dreams. There is definitely a break from the way lisp was, and it's clearly deliberate (defn vs defun for example). But at the same time, this _is_ a lisp for the XXI century. Old dreams needed to die for progress' sake.
I strongly disagree though about the importance of understanding everything all the way down. It's not a bad thing per se, but pales in comparison to being able to work easily with what others have made. Another compromise, and one well chosen in my opinion. The vastness of java space compensates more then a hundred times the lack of transparency.
- marcusbooster 17y agoSo at what point of abandoning some of the fundamental ideas do you have something else entirely? I hate all this "dream" talk, it's not a dream it's been implemented. If you don't want to use it fine, but don't pretend to be taking all the good and leaving the bad. Imho having to deal with Java classes is just substituting one bad for another (or worse).
- Semiapies 17y agoWell, you can either have just "perfect" implementations of an obscure language very few people are coding in, or you can also have an implementation of a similar language that is imperfect while actually gaining mindshare for both languages. Who's more likely to bother looking at some other version of lisp, someone whose experience is C++, Perl, and Java, or someone who's used Clojure? This isn't the perfect as the enemy of the good so much as the perfect not willing to let the good be its friend.